In A One-Page Essay, Explain Why You Think Michelangelo Chos ✓ Solved

In a one-page essay, explain why you think Michelangelo chos

In a one-page essay, explain why you think Michelangelo chose to sculpt his Moses (2.4.8) from marble, and Marcel Duchamp decided to appropriate a urinal (3.10.1) to declare it a work of art. Consider the materials and unique qualities — the durability of stone and the shininess of ceramic glaze — and the associations the artists may have had when choosing the material or process. State your personal opinion about the works and their messages. References: 2.4.8 Michelangelo, Tomb of Julius II, Detail of Moses, Marble; 3.10.1 Marcel Duchamp, Fountain, 1950 (replica of original from 1917), Porcelain urinal.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

Artists choose materials not only for technical suitability but for the cultural and symbolic resonances those materials carry. Michelangelo’s Moses (detail of the Tomb of Julius II) is hewn from marble, a medium long associated with permanence, classical precedent, and high craftsmanship. Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain (the porcelain urinal) is an industrially manufactured object repurposed to question the very definition of art. Analyzing both works through the lens of materiality—durability, surface quality, production method, and cultural associations—helps explain why each artist selected their respective medium and what message each intended to convey.

Marble and Michelangelo: Tradition, Permanence, and Authority

Marble has a long lineage in Western sculpture, from classical antiquity through the Renaissance. By choosing marble for Moses, Michelangelo aligns his work with the gravitas of ancient sculpture and the Renaissance recovery of classical ideals (Vasari, 1550). Marble’s physical properties—its compressive strength, the ability to hold fine detail, and its capacity for a subtle, almost luminous polish—allowed Michelangelo to render anatomical precision and expressive textures that convey psychological depth (Hartt, 1987; Hibbard, 1974). The translucency and polish of marble create skin-like effects that impart vitality and presence, which are crucial in a monumental funerary context intended to memorialize Pope Julius II.

Beyond technical advantages, marble carries symbolic weight. A tomb demands permanence: the stone suggests endurance against time and decay, signaling the intended perpetuity of the commemoration (Gombrich, 2016). For a papal tomb, marble’s historical association with sanctity, nobility, and high art would reinforce the spiritual and political authority of the subject. Michelangelo’s virtuosity in revealing a figure seemingly emerging from the block also draws attention to the artist’s mastery—an assertion of craft as a vehicle of meaning (Hibbard, 1974).

Porcelain and Duchamp: Readymade Disruption and Conceptual Shift

In stark contrast, Duchamp’s Fountain is porcelain—a mass-produced, sanitary, widely available ceramic. Porcelain’s glossy glaze and industrial finish highlight its manufactured character; the urinal’s form is designed for function, hygiene, and anonymity rather than aesthetic contemplation (Tomkins, 1996). Duchamp’s appropriation of a ready-made household object intentionally foregrounds its banality: by relocating it to an art context, he shifts emphasis from craft and material beauty to idea, selection, and context (Sanouillet & Peterson, 1973).

The porcelain urinal also carries layered associations—plumbing and bodily waste, cleanliness and sanitation, and the mechanization of modern life. By presenting such an object as art, Duchamp provokes viewers to reconsider aesthetic hierarchies and institutional gatekeeping: what makes something “art” if not the artist’s designation and the context of display? The urinal’s gloss and industrial uniformity underscore the impersonality of production, counterposed to the uniqueness and auteur-driven pride of traditional sculpture (Camfield, 1979; Hopkins, 1989).

Comparative Interpretation: Material as Message

Michelangelo’s marble and Duchamp’s porcelain thus function as rhetorical devices. Marble’s durability and classical connotations convey reverence, continuity, and the sanctity of high art. It permits the artist to sculpt form from stone in a way that signals mastery and social prestige (Hartt, 1987). In contrast, porcelain’s sheen and industrial origin emphasize disposability, modernity, and the demystification of artistic labor—Duchamp’s gesture stages an intellectual provocation rather than a crafted wonder (Tomkins, 1996).

Material choice also affects viewer interaction. Michelangelo’s Moses invites close visual and tactile imagination: viewers trace the carved anatomy, feel the implied weight and presence, and read symbolic attributes (Hibbard, 1974). Duchamp’s Fountain invites conceptual engagement: its shock value and contextual displacement force the viewer to confront assumptions about aesthetics, venue, and authority (Sanouillet & Peterson, 1973; Camfield, 1979). Both strategies are persuasive but operate in different rhetorical registers—veneration versus critique.

Personal Assessment

Both works are effective in their intentions. Michelangelo’s Moses exemplifies how material and technique can amplify narrative and spiritual authority: marble’s permanence and classicism reinforce the tomb’s commemorative purpose, while the sculptor’s hand animates stone into a living presence (Vasari, 1550; Gombrich, 2016). Duchamp’s Fountain, meanwhile, remains one of the most powerful conceptual artworks of the twentieth century because it uses a mundane material to puncture complacent definitions of art and institution (Tomkins, 1996; Hopkins, 1989).

Personally, I appreciate both approaches: Michelangelo for his unmatched ability to fuse material mastery with expressive depth, and Duchamp for his audacious conceptual reorientation that expanded art’s possibilities. They reveal that materiality is never neutral; it carries histories, functions, and values that artists can either reinforce or subvert (Prown, 1982). In this sense, materials are rhetorical tools—Michelangelo uses stone to consecrate; Duchamp uses porcelain to question.

Conclusion

Michelangelo’s choice of marble and Duchamp’s appropriation of a porcelain urinal exemplify two divergent artistic strategies that hinge on material meaning. Marble sustains tradition, reverence, and technical display; porcelain foregrounds industriality, banality, and conceptual provocations. Both choices are deliberate and central to each work’s message: one cements legacy in stone, the other unsettles legacy by elevating the everyday into an arena of debate.

References

• Vasari, G. (1550). Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects.
• Hartt, F. (1987). History of Italian Renaissance Art. (Prentice Hall).
• Hibbard, H. (1974). Michelangelo. (Harper & Row).
• King, R. (2002). Michelangelo and the Pope's Ceiling. (Penguin).
• Gombrich, E. H. (2016). The Story of Art. (Phaidon).
• Tomkins, C. (1996). Duchamp: A Biography. (Henry Holt).
• Sanouillet, M., & Peterson, E. (1973). The Writings of Marcel Duchamp. (Thames & Hudson).
• Camfield, W. A. (1979). "Marcel Duchamp and the Readymade." Art Journal.
• Prown, J. (1982). "Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture." Winterthur Portfolio.
• Hopkins, D. (1989). "Duchamp's Fountain: The Baroness and the Readymade." Oxford Art Journal.